permanently excluding the whole province of Ulster, Nation-
alist counties no less than Unionist, from the operation of the
Home Rule bill. It was certain that the Liberal and National-
ist majority in the Commons would indignantly reject this so-
lution. At the same time the urgency of the Ulster problem
was again enforced by enormous demonstrations on the Boyne
anniversary, emphasizing Sir Edward Carson's words: " Give us
a clear cut or come and fight us."
The Amending bill was to be taken in the Commons on Mon- day July 20; but the King and the wiser heads in the Cabinet Conference were determined to make a further effort for peace; at Buck- and on that morning The Times announced that the King had issued invitations to a conference on the Ulster question at Buckingham Palace, consisting of two members each from the Government, the Opposition, the Nationalists and the Ulster Covenanters. Moderate men in all parties hailed the announcement with relief; but keen partisans were suspicious and critical. The conference met on Tuesday under the chairmanship of the Speaker. The Government were represented by Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lloyd George; the Opposition by Lord Lansdowne and Mr. Bonar Law; the Nationalists by Mr. Redmond and Mr. Dillon; and the Ulstermen by Sir Edward Carson and Capt. Craig. The King opened the proceedings in a brief but weighty speech. He said: " My intervention at this moment may be regarded as a new departure. But the exceptional circumstances under which you are brought together justify my action. For months we have watched with deep misgivings the course of events in Ireland. The trend has been surely and steadily towards an appeal to force, and to-day the cry of civil war is on the lips of the most responsible and sober- minded of my people."
His Majesty urged on the conference " a spirit of generous compromise," reminded them that the time was short, and expressed his confidence that they would be patient, earnest and conciliatory. In spite of a considerable display of these qualities, the conference failed. The members met on four days, from Tuesday to Friday, and at the close the Speaker announced that they had been unable to agree, either in principle or in detail, on the area to be excluded from the operation of the Home Rule bill. It was understood that the deadlock arose over the question of the exclusion of Fermanagh and Tyrone, both of them counties greatly divided in political opinion. The position seemed to be desperate, and passions were once more fiercely excited by a fatal affray in Dublin on the following Sunday between British soldiers and the populace an affray which followed on a successful gun- running on a considerable scale by the National Volunteers. The Amending bill was put down for July 30, and a great Liberal meeting in the London Opera House on the previous day urged the Government to go forward with their programme. But al- ready the international crisis precipitated by Austria's attack on Serbia had become too serious to admit of the continuance of domestic strife. The Amending bill was indefinitely postponed, and civil war was averted by a gigantic European conflict.
The bitterness introduced into politics by the Parliament Act led, during the last years of peace, to frequent rumours and accusations of irregular if not corrupt dealings by The individual ministers in regard, now to silver, now to
"Scandal." ^> now ^ wireless telegraphy. Only, however, in one instance did there appear to be any foundation for the suggestions of improper action. In April 1912, after the Postmaster-General had accepted a tender for the erection of wireless stations by the Marconi Co., the Attorney-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs, afterwards Lord Reading) bought 10,000 shares in the American Marconi Co., a separate company which, it was contended, did not benefit by the contract, and sold i, ooo each to two friends in the Government the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lloyd George) and the Chief Whip (Lord Murray of Elibank). Some of these shares were resold by their purchasers in the next' few days at a profit, but the total net result of the transaction after a year was a loss. The advice to purchase had been given to Sir Rufus by his brother Mr. Godfrey Isaacs, managing director of the American company, and also of the English company. These facts were not told
to the House of Commons when in the previous autumn the Marconi contract was discussed and a committee was appointed to inquire into it. They only came out in March 1913 during the trial of an action for libel against a French newspaper which had given currency to the rumours of corruption that were rife throughout the winter. Thereupon the Attorney-General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared before the committee and explained what they had done. Lord Murray, who had bought further shares in the company oa behalf of the Liberal party fund, was abroad. The committee found that the gross charges of corruption were unfounded, but could not agree upon a united report. The majority, consisting of Liberal, Labour, and Nationalist members, awarded no blame to anyone except those who circulated the charges of corruption, thereby setting aside their Liberal chairman's draft report, which concluded that ministers had been ill-advised both in their purchase of shares and in their delay in disclosing the facts. The minority, con- sisting of Unionist members only, found that ministers had acted with grave impropriety. In the debate which followed in the House of Commons on June 18 and 19, both the Attorney- General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while protesting their good faith throughout the transaction, admitted that the original purchase was indiscreet, and that the delay in disclosure was a mistake of judgment. After a heated discussion, during which the Unionists vainly endeavoured to secure the passing of some amendment expressing the regret of Parliament for what ministers admitted to be indiscretions, a motion was carried by 346 to 268 accepting the two ministers' statements and reprobat- ing the charges of corruption. Public opinion was more severe than Parliament. It was shocked that important ministers, and especially the guardian of the Treasury, should show themselves so wanting in delicacy and prudence in pecuniary matters. Subsequently in the House of Lords Lord Murray admitted that his action had not been wise or correct, but a committee of that House unanimously found that he had done nothing that reflected on his personal honour.
Mr. Lloyd George at once endeavoured to divert attention from his own indiscretions to the shortcomings of the landlords. What humbug it was for Conservatives, he said, in a speech on July i at a luncheon given to himself and the Attorney-General at the National Liberal Club, to set up an ideal standard for Liberal ministers, when it was notorious that parliaments of landlords in the past had been guided in their legislation by their private interests! The Radi- cal land campaign, started in the previous year, was pushed on, and the subject formed the staple of Mr. Lloyd George's nu- merous speeches in the country in the autumn of 1913. The Unionists countered the movement by a programme of their own (explained by Lord Lansdowne at Matlock on June 21), which involved the encouragement of small ownership, and the provision of advances by the State to assist the building of cot- tages and the purchase by tenants of their holdings. At Swindon, on Oct. 22, Mr. Lloyd George announced the ministerial scheme. The Government proposed to set up a Ministry of Lands to take over the functions of the Board of Agriculture, together with registration of title, settled estates, and land valuation in short to have a general supervision of land and of all deal- ings with it of whatever kind. Commissioners, having a judicial character, would be appointed, who would be given large com- pulsory powers in respect of rent, eviction, compensation for improvements, and wages. Tenants would be protected against damage by game. The new ministry would have power to acquire at a reasonable price all waste, derelict, and neglected lands, arid to afforest, reclaim, equip, and cultivate them. Hous- ing and cheap transit were also to be provided. While Union- ists denounced the extravagance of the scheme, and the " horde of officials " with despotic powers which it proposed to set up. they did not take it very seriously. The event proved them to be right. But Mr. Lloyd George took ad- J?/^Jf^' vantage of his budget for the next year, 1914, to ad- vance his programme of social reform in other ways. He made provision for an extended series of grants to local authorities
